I would like to say this as I think it is important:

at the treatment place I went, to me I was amazed at how they could base the rest of the treatment on what was either only theories in the first place, or even much discussable issues, in other words, issues of opinion or point of views.

Then the rest of all the treatment adds up from their statements from the start, which is completely stupid, probably everything from then on is being constructed from this shaky start, it's like building a foundation on jello, it cannot stand on its own, nothing after that start can be of much or any relevance and/or value at all since it all started from something weak, vague or shaky in the first place...

What I just thought about is if someone with this knowledge, with access to this program's material, could simply do a point by point rebuttal of all the program's points and from the very start, with the intention of eventually make it public.

This might not only show where some of the very basic human rights are being biased from the very start, since they built something out of opinions and views from the start, but might also expose how distorted what they even call a "therapy" can be...

Of course the client (that's how they called us) had to sign a confidentiality contract at the beginning of the treatment (that alone can make one think huh?), so I don't know if it would be legal to do what I just suggested to do, however this is about denouncing it, which in fact just makes me wonder about if one cannot sue them just for that confidentiality contract, which specifically said that we cannot talk outside about anything of what has been discussed during the meetings (Canada)...
Isn't that dogmatism? And maybe other things too...
If some people here know a little bit more about this I would be interested in your enlightment.


Love2uall